No service tax applicable on reimbursements, rules Indian Supreme Court
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

No service tax applicable on reimbursements, rules Indian Supreme Court

Sponsored by

logo.png
The new instructions concern the imports of goods and services

The Apex Court in a recent judgment (Civil Appeal number 2013 of 2014) held that no service tax should apply on expenditures recovered as reimbursements before May 14 2015.

The Apex Court affirmed the Delhi High Court ruling which opined that the scope of Rule 5 went beyond the purview of Section 67 of the Service Tax Law and hence impermissible.

The taxpayers were rendering services in the following four categories:

  • Consulting engineering;

  • Share transfer agency;

  • Custom house agent covered by the head 'clearing and forwarding agent'; and

  • Site formation and clearance, excavation and earth moving, and demolition.

While rendering the aforesaid services, the taxpayers also received reimbursements for certain activities undertaken by them which in their view should not have been included in the 'gross amount charged' for the levying of service tax. As per Rule 5, the value of these reimbursable activities should also have been included as part of the services provided.

In terms of the service tax legislation, the rules have been formulated for carrying out the provisions of the law which provides for levying, quantification and collection of service tax.

Section 67 categorically mentions that service tax should apply only on the gross amount charged for providing such a taxable service. Therefore, any amount which does not apply in relation to providing the taxable service cannot be brought within the tax net. Once this interpretation was given, it was clear that Rule 5 went far beyond the mandate of Section 67. It is established law that rules cannot go beyond the statute. The aforesaid view is further strengthened by the manner in which the legislature itself was enacted. On realising that Section 67 did not include reimbursable expenses, the legislature suitably amended the law to include reimbursable expenditure or cost incurred by the service provider in the course of providing or agreeing to provide a taxable service. Thus, only with effect from May 14 2015, by virtue of provisions of Section 67 itself, could such reimbursable expenditure or costs form part of the valuation of the taxable services for the purposes of charging service tax.

bagri.jpg

Niraj Bagri (niraj.bagri@dhruvaadvisors.com)

Dhruva Advisors

Tel: +91 22 6108 1000

Website: www.dhruvaadvisors.com

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Despite the relief, Brazil’s government has also presented a bill which seeks to re-impose a tax burden on companies’ payroll, one local tax specialist told ITR
Jeremy Brown arrives at the firm after a near 16-year career with Deloitte
PwC could elect a woman into the senior leadership position for the first time; in other news, KPMG Australia has extended its CEO’s term
The Senate report into PwC’s scandal is titled ‘The cover up worsens the crime’
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
The firm’s tax business generated a quarter of HLB’s overall revenues in 2023
While successful pillar two implementation will require collaboration across all units, a combination of internal and external tax advice is at the centre of the effort
Binance has also been accused of manipulating foreign exchange rates via currency speculation and rate-fixing
Six individuals should have raised questions over information they received but did not breach professional standards, according to the firm
The partnership of KPMG UK has installed Holt for a second term as CEO and senior partner; in other news, a Baker McKenzie partner has sued the IRS
Gift this article